furholt2008antiquity libre

8/11/2019 Furholt2008Antiquity Libre

1/12

Research

Pottery, cultures, people? The EuropeanBaden material re-examinedMartin Furholt

The Baden culture, like others in central Europe, has long been assumed to be the materialindication of a people. In a searing analytical deconstruction, the author shows that Badenpottery has no equivalence with other cultural practices, and is itself an amalgam of a number ofdifferent pottery fabrics and styles, many of them regionally diverse. Singled out among them isthe early Borelaz fine ware which is actively spread in central Europe, perhaps accompanied by aknowledge of the first wheeled vehicles.

Keywords:Central Europe, Neolithic, culture concept, Baden culture, pottery, Borelaz ware,

wheeled vehicles

Introduction

Baden culture is a term well established in the archaeological literature, being of exceptionalimportance since it is associated with influential models of supra-regional perspective:Nandor Kalicz sees Baden culture as connected to the Anatolian-Aegean Bronze Age (Kalicz1963); Baden culture plays a major role in Sherratts Secondary Products Revolution(Sherratt 1981: 264f.; 1997) and more recently, Maran (2001; 2004) has stressed the

connections between Baden culture and the earliest wheeled vehicles. The influences ofBaden culture on central European pottery styles have been postulated in several cases, forexample the Cham culture (Matuschik 2001) or the Salzmunde culture (Behrens 1973).

Considering the important role Baden culture plays in our understanding of LateNeolithic Europe it is alarming how poorly defined the concept still is. One problemlies in the assumption of block-like cultural coherence, but this critique could be directedtowards many Neolithic cultures. The aim of this paper is to show an alternative to theculture-historical framework by applying a polythetic classification and relating the materialculture to different spheres of cultural communication. To this end, I have re-examined the

components of the Baden culture and assigned different roles to them, isolating the specialsupra-regional role of one of them Borelaz ware.

The traditional concept of Baden culture

Although there has been much discussion on the problems of the traditional concept ofculture since it was formulated by Childe (e.g. Muller 2001: 38ff.; Shennan 1989; Wotzka1993), the concept of Baden culture has remained more or less unquestioned in central

Institut f ur Ur- und Fr uhgeschichte, Christian Albrechts-Universit at, D-24098 Kiel, Germany (Email:[email protected])

Received: 24 May 2007; Accepted: 14 September 2007; Revised: 18 October 2007

antiquity82 (2008): 617628

617


2/12

Martin Furholt

European archaeology. It is generally assumed that this pottery style equates to a distinctsocial group with a more or less homogenous culture, having a certain set of stone tools,burial rites, clay figurines, a common economic basis, settlement structure etc. Wherecongruence between different spheres of the material culture a premise for the applicationof Childes concept is lacking, this is either explained by the scarcity of the archaeological

remains or even constructed through a research practice that actively seeks out the culturesburial ritual, economy or settlement structure.

Recent research on Baden culture has seldom questioned whether the archaeologicalphenomenon is to be classified as an archaeological culture. Instead, the discussion hascentred around problems of dating and its relation to other archaeological cultures (seeNemejcova-Pavukova 1998 for a summary). A challenge to that approach was the discoveryof the close links between an early Baden pottery, the so-called Boleraz, and the neighbouringCernavoda III culture (Roman & Diamandi 2001). In the early period, pottery of one style

was in use along the whole course of the Danube, while the later Baden subgroups have a

much more limited distribution. The result of these observations was to question whetherthe early Boleraz-Cernavoda III pottery and the later Baden pottery represented two separatecultures or one.

Critique of the concept of a culture

Such a question is misleading, since it is built on a number of assumptions that have neverbeen validated. The first of these is that Baden culture pottery has a discrete distributionand a sharp boundary with other pottery styles, a proposition maintained despite its obvious

disagreement with the archaeological evidence: namely that a great amount of settlementassemblages contain a mixture of types. One response is to create new composite cultures,such as the Cernavoda III-Boleraz, or the mixture of Funnel Beaker and Baden pottery inparts of Lesser Poland (Zastawny 1999). But the regular appearance of Boleraz pottery insettlements dominated by Funnel Beaker pottery in Moravia (Prochazkova & Vitula 2001),Bohemia (Zapotocky 2000), Upper Silesia (Bukowska-Gedigowa 1980) and Lesser Poland(Kruk & Milisauskas 1990) cannot be explained by labelling such finds as imports or as theresult of cultural contacts. Neither does the creation of yet another culture, called FunnelBeaker-Baden solve the problem.

A second assumption is that the distribution of Baden culture pottery corresponds to thedistribution of other types of material culture. This too is unsupported by the archaeologicalrecord. Flint industries, for example as defined by Balcer (1988) show no congruence tothe boundaries given by the Baden style pottery. Investigations directed towards the flintindustries of the Baden culture reveal their lack of uniformity (Kaczanowska 1982/1983;Pelisiak 1991). The so-called human figurines with mobile head are usually described as acommon type of idol associated with Baden pottery (Kalicz 2002; Novotny 1981). The fact,that these figurines are found in the Carpathian Basin and south-western Slovakia, whereasanimal figurines dominate in Austria and Moravia (Pavelck 1982; 1992; Ruttkay 1995:154), strongly indicates that the clay figurines denote a cultural sphere with boundaries

cutting right through the area of the Baden culture.

618


3/12

Research

The European Baden material re-examined

Neither do cultural practices equate to the cultural region of the pottery. Burial customsassociated with Baden style pottery show a high degree of regionality (Sache 2005). Theratios of animal bones from the settlements reveal the dominance of sheep and goat in anumber of settlements with Baden style pottery in the Carpathian Basin, while in the regionsto the north, cattle is dominant (Benecke 1994: 89ff.). Again, a boundary is cutting right

through the area of the Baden culture, forming two areas that tie in with their respectivesurroundings. It is impossible to find any sphere of material culture that shows a distributioncorresponding to that of the pottery style.

Lastly, it is necessary for the argument for a cultural zone to assume that Baden culturepottery has itself a uniform style. This third assumption seems to be the most forced ofall. In the literature there are so many names for subgroups or related groups of the Badenculture that it seems strange that it has been possible to preserve the concept of one uniformculture for so long. In fact, during the last decades some of the subgroups were separatedfrom the Baden culture, such as the Kostolac- or the Bosaca group (Nemejcova-Pavukova

1998), while close links between Baden, Jevisovice and Rivnac cultures are obvious. Theremaining Baden culture is further divided into very different groups, such as Viss, Ossarn,Ozd, Uny, Fonyod, Mogia, Zesawice-Pleszow etc. (Nemejcova-Pavukova 1998). In1973 Neustupny wrote that in no single region were all the phases of the Baden culturedocumented by unambiguously phased assemblages (1973: 328). The Baden culture, asa homogenous entity was obviously already in doubt 35 years ago, but nevertheless theconcept has remained largely unquestioned. The three premises stated above, which mightqualify Baden culture as an archaeological culture in the traditional sense, have clearly tobe rejected. The concept of the Baden culture as a homogenous cultural unit cannot besustained.

Towards a new concept: the Baden pottery styles

Since Baden culture was defined by the stylistic traits of pottery, it should be made clearthat this is the basic meaning of the term. The problems listed above indicate the necessityof a definition of the Baden pottery style that ignores traditional terminological boundaries.Secondly, a polythetic classification of the material, following Clarke (Clarke 1968: 246ff.),should replace the premise of congruent distributions of the different spheres of materialculture. Thirdly, a uniformity of the Baden pottery style should not be presupposed, but

the search for subgroups should be part of the investigation.Such an investigation has been carried out on material from the regions of Moravia,Upper Silesia and Lesser Poland. Here, 120 assemblages from settlements were sampledin order to cover the spatial and temporal reach of the so-called Baden culture asit appears in the literature. In a second step, the investigation was extended into thesurrounding areas, thus covering the northern area of the distribution of Baden style pottery(Figure 1).

The pottery in the assemblages was then classified scientifically. Figure 2 shows acorrespondence analysis of the decorative motifs of 389 settlement finds from the studyarea. The graph seems quite blurry at first, because it contains a broad regional scale, but is

in fact quite well structured, as the grey shading indicates. It draws on a set of regional analyses

619


4/12

Martin Furholt

Figure 1. The settlement finds forming the basis for the analysis.

(see key) and reveals a number of more general style groupings (for details of the method,see Furholt 2008). Style 1, to the left, is the so-called Boleraz style (Nemejcova-Pavukova& Barta 1977), Style 2 could be called Funnel Beaker with Boleraz influences (cf. Smd2003). Style 3 is a variant of post-Boleraz, while Style 4 is referring to the Late Baden andBosaca (Pavelck 1973), Style 5 to Jevisovice B (Medunova-Benesova 1977), encompassingalso variants of Kostolac and Rivnac (Ehrich & Pleslova-Stikova 1968), whereas Style 3/4is referring to the different variants of Classical Baden and Ossarn (Mayer 1995). Style 7is denoting Funnel Beaker complexes with Baden style influences in Lesser Poland, GreaterPoland and Kuyavia (Burchard 1973).

One principle variant (along the x-axis) is clearly dominated by time, demonstrated by the15 new radiocarbon dates (Table 1) included in the analysis. The diagram covers the periodfrom 3650-2900 BC. Styles 1 and 2 are distinguished by the strength of Funnel Beakerinfluence, as the units in the upper part of the graph show a dominant influence of the FunnelBeaker pottery style. A second variant (along the y-axis) seems therefore to be determinedto a great deal by the difference in composition between a southern cultural influence, thatI will call Baden and a northern cultural influence, denoted as Funnel Beaker.

So, the phenomenon that is usually called Baden culture in the literature, is actually tobe described as a number of distinct pottery styles, sharing a number of common features,but still differentiable. They are largely differentiated by period of manufacture and by the

Funnel Beaker-Baden dichotomy.

620


5/12

Research

TheEuropeanBadenmaterialre-examined

Figure 2. Correspondence analysis of the decoration motifs for 389 settlement assemblages.

621


6/12

Martin Furholt

Table 1. List of 15 radiocarbon dates obtained for settlement finds with Baden style pottery (afterFurholt 2008). Note that the date from Jevisovice B seems too old.

Feature Context Lab No. Date Dev. 13C BCcal (1) Sample

Jevisovice C2 cultural layer Erl-6430 4821 50 21,5 3660-3520 animal bone

Jevisovice C1 cultural layer Erl-6431 4670 50

21,5 3520-3360 animal boneJevisovice B cultural layer Erl-6432 4745 49 19,7 3640-3380 animal boneBrno Lisen III cultural layer Erl-6433 4710 49 20,3 3630-3370 animal boneBrno Lisen II cultural layer Erl-6434 4748 51 21,0 3640-3380 animal boneWojnowice 3 settlement pit UtC-13259 4356 46 23,8 3020-2900 animal bone, cattleZeslawice 97 settlement pit UtC-13260 4387 45 24,4 3090-2910 animal bone, cattleZeslawice 140a settlement pit UtC-13261 4420 43 21,4 3260-2920 animal bone,

domestic pigWyciaze 50 settlement pit UtC-13263 4542 43 20,3 3370-3100 animal bone,

domestic pigIwanowice Babia settlement pit UtC-13264 4365 43 20,8 3020-2910 animal bone, cattle

Gora I, 1Iwanowice Babia settlement pit UtC-13265 4336 44 22,0 3020-2890 animal bone, cattle



Gora I, 38bIwanowice Babia settlement pit UtC-13268 4362 43 22,8 3020-2910 animal bone,

Gora I, 62 dom. sheepHlinsko 1/69 settlement pit UtC-13773 4620 60 20,0 3500-3140 animal bone, wild

boar

The (early Baden) Boleraz style

For a long time, the Boleraz style (Figure 3) has been known as the earliest subgroup of theBaden culture (Neustupny 1959), and the increasing number of radiocarbon dates allows amore precise dating (mapped in Figure 2). Schwechat 14 (Austria), positioned at the verybeginning of Style 1, has yielded the oldest date (see Wildet al.2001), being earlier than3650 BC, while Jevisovice C1, positioned in the later part of the cluster, dates into the

period 3520-3350 BC. Arbon Bleiche 3 (Lake Constance), at the end of that cluster, wasdated by dendrochronology to 3384-3370 BC (de Capitani 2002) and confirms an overallduration from 3650 BC to 3350 BC. The stratigraphy of Jevi sovice (Medunova-Benesova1981) indicates that in the region of southern Moravia, the Boler az style is not present longbefore 3520 BC. The lowest layer, C2, dated to 3650-3520 BC, shows very little Bolerazinfluence, whereas the next layer, C1, dated to 3520-3350 BC is a key site for the definitionof that style. Boleraz influences in Lesser Poland cannot be dated earlier than the phaseBronocice III, starting somewhat around or after 3500 BC. Although most dates for Bolerazlie between 3650 and 3350 BC (Wild et al. 2001), there are two series indicating a survivalof the Boleraz style after 3350 BC, one from Balatonoszod (Horvathet al.in press) and one

from Gyor-Szabadretdomb (Figleret al. 1997).

622


7/12

Research


Figure 3. A typical inventory of the Boleraz style, selected from Jevisovice C1 (after Medunova-Benesov a 1981).

The overall picture provided by the radiocarbon dates seems to indicate the presenceof a core area of the Boleraz style in Lower Austria and a subsequent spread to the northand west after 3500 BC, maybe also to the south and east, where we presently lack dates.In Figure 2, we defined the Styles 1 (Boleraz) and 2 (Funnel Beaker with Boleraz). Thedifference between them is obviously a gradual one that can be described by the values ofthe y-axis of the correspondence analysis. Mapping these values for each find in the earlyperiod (3650-3500 BC) and interpolating them (see contours), illustrates the character ofthe spread of the Boleraz style (Figure 4). The boundary between settlements dominated byFunnel Beaker style (positive values) and settlements dominated by Boleraz style (negative

values) is stretching somewhere north of the Danube. Additionally, the spread of Boler azseems to be concentrated to the big river valleys of Moravia, up to the Moravian Gate inthe east, and to Bohemia, in the west. In the following period (3500-3350 BC), the Boler azstyle spreads further to the north and dominates most of Moravia and Bohemia, reachingLake Constance in the west.

Regional and supra-regional fabrics

In order to understand the systems of pottery distribution better, fabric analysis was appliedto 8000 vessels from Moravia, Upper Silesia and Lesser Poland. A number of attributes

including the material of the temper, the surface treatment, wall thickness, colour and

623


8/12

Martin Furholt

Figure 4. Interpolation of the values of the second axis of the analysis (Figure 2), using triangulation with smoothing (VerticalMapper, ver. 3.1) for the earliest period of the Boler az style (3650-3500 BC).

structure were assembled and the resulting data set subjected to correspondence analysis inits turn (Furholt 2008). The analysis (Figure 5) grouped the vessels into three clusters, thedifferentiation between them being an expression of the fabric coarseness, from thick walled,richly tempered vessels on the right side, to smoothed or polished, thin walled vessels onthe left side of the graph. Thus, the three clusters are interpreted as the reflection of threetechnical standards for the production of three types of fabric (technical groups, TG) ofdifferent quality fine wares (TG1 and 2) and coarse wares (TG3).

Examining the occurrence of fine and coarse fabrics within the style groups offers someimportant results. Fine ware fabrics do not vary as between Style 1 and 2. Style 2 tends to

contain Boleraz fine ware vessels with Funnel Beaker coarse wares, a trend illustrated in thehilltop settlement site of Rmz (Figure 6;Smd 1994) and at the settlement site of Praslavice(Prochazkova & Vitula 2001).Smds (2003) study of Moravian grave mounds also revealsthe repeated combination of a set of Funnel Beaker vessels with one or two Boleraz vessels,the latter clearly restricted to jugs and cups of fine ware. At Arbon Bleiche 3 (de Capitani2002) the dominant fabric (at 80-90 per cent) is a coarse ware with local regional forms,

while the minority fabric, a fine ware includes most of the Boleraz vessels (de Capitani2002).

Within the pottery assemblages we can therefore identify at least two spheres of culturalinteraction. Among coarse ware styles, local traditions are utilised, like the Moravian Funnel

Beaker or the Pfyn-Horgen style at Lake Constance, while in the sphere of fine wares,

624


9/12

Research


Figure 5. Correspondence analysis of the technical parameters of 8000 pots from the regions of Moravia, Upper Silesia andLesser Poland. The units (triangles) are grouped in three distinctive clusters. The variables position are indicated by the dots.

Figure 6. Ratio of pots sampled from the site of Rmz, illustrating the relationship between style and technical group.

625


10/12

Martin Furholt

Figure 7. Model of the pottery assemblage containing elements representing different cultural spheres related to diverse socialrealms.

supra-regional styles seem to play a much greater role, like the pottery of the Boler azstyle.

Discussion

With these results in mind we can replace a culture with a composite model, in whichdifferent kinds of material belong to different sub-systems and play different roles in society(Figure 7). In this case the coarse-ware-vessels seem to refer to local networks and socialinteractions, while the fine ware vessels would represent a supra-regional system in whichthe material is used more actively, in contrast to the supposedly more habitual role of thecoarse ware. The fine ware in the Boleraz style shows no restriction to, or preference for, anykind of settlement type, environment or type of economy. There is an association with the

custom of cremation (Sache 2005), indicating that the style bears ideological connotations,whose content remains unclear. The connection of the Boleraz style with the appearance ofthe earliest evidence for wheeled vehicles has long been noted (Maran 2001; 2004; Sherratt1981; 1997; 2004). And this association has been strengthened by the recent dates. Thoughthere are dates for the earliest evidence of wheeled vehicles lying between 3600 and 3300BC, wherever more precise dates are available, we find a quite clear restriction to the timespan of 3500-3350 BC (see Bakker et al. 1999). The earliest dates for Boleraz in its supposedcore area (Lower Austria, south-west Slovakia) indicate a start of that style before or around3650 BC. But it also seems clear that the spread of this style cannot be fixed before the year3520 BC moreover, it seems to have taken place exactly in the time-window (3520-3350

BC), as the dendrochronology dates from Arbon Bleiche 3 seem to prove.

626


11/12

Research


Conclusion

The so-called Baden culture does not embrace a consistent cultural package, and evenif expressed by pottery alone has been shown here to be a coarse approximation of anumber of ceramic subsystems. What is more, fine and coarse ware pottery show different

developments. In the early phase (3650-3350 BC) coarse fabrics are regionally diverse andlocal in their context and meaning. The earliest fine wares, the Boleraz wares, have their firstuse in Austria (and the adjacent region), but then spread over a short time span to north and

west mixing with other cultural attributes. This expansion, dated by new radiocarbon datesto 3520-3350 BC coincides closely to the spread of wheeled vehicles as currently known.

Acknowledgements

Research in the Czech Republic and in Poland was funded by the DAADand Studienstiftung des Deutschen Volkes.I wish to thank a lot of people, especially Cornelia Becker, Maria Guagnin, Volker Heyd, Sawomir Kadrow,Johannes Muller, Jaroslav Peska, Constanze Rassmann, Knut Rassmann, LubomirSebela and Piotr Wodarczak

for discussions and aid.

ReferencesBakker, J.A., J. Kruk, A.E. Lanting&S.

Milisauskas.1999. The earliest evidence ofwheeled vehicles in Europe and the Near East.Antiquity73: 778-90.

Balcer, B. 1988. The Neolithic flint industries in theVistula and Odra Basins.Przeglad Archeologiczny35: 49-100.

Behrens, H. 1973. Die Salzmunder Gruppe dermitteldeutschen Trichterbecherkultur und die

nordwestlichen Ausstrahlungen der Badener Kultur,in B. Chropovsky (ed.)Symposium uber dieEntstehung und Chronologie der Badener Kultur:23-30. Bratislava: Slovakian Academy of Sciences.

Benecke, N. 1994.Archaozoologische Studien zurEntwicklung der Haustierhaltung in Mitteleuropaund Sudskandinavien von den Anfangen bis zumausgehenden Mittelalter.Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

Bukowska-Gedigowa, J. 1980.Osady neolityczne wPietrowicach Wielkich pod Raciborzem.Wrocaw:Polska Academia Nauk.

Burchard, B. 1973. Zur Genesis der Kultur mitkannelierter Keramik, in B. Chropovsky (ed.)

Symposium uber die Entstehung und Chronologie derBadener Kultur: 55-66. Bratislava: SlovakianAcademy of Sciences.

Clarke, D.L. 1968.Analytical Archaeology.London:Methuen.

de Capitani, A. 2002. Gefasskeramik, in A. deCapitani, S. Deschler-Erb, U. Leuzinger, E.Marti-Gradel & J. Schibler (ed.)Die

Jungsteinzeitliche Seeufersiedlung Arbon Bleiche 3.Funde: 135-276. Frauenfeld: Departement furErziehung und Kultur des Kantons Thurgau.

Ehrich, R.W. & E.Pleslova-Stikova. 1968.Homolka. An Eneolithic settlement site in Bohemia.

Cambridge (MA): Peabody Museum.

Figler, A., L. Bartosiewicz, G. Fuleky&E.Hertelendi. 1997. Copper Age settlement and thenew water system: a case study from north-westernHungary, in J. Chapman & P. Dolukhanov (ed.)Landscapes in flux(Colloquia Pontica 3): 209-230.Oxford: Oxbow.

Furholt, M. 2008.Die nordlichen Badener Keramikstileim Kontext des mitteleuropaischen Spatneolithikums(3650-2900 v. Chr.).Bonn: Rudolf Habelt.

Horvath, T., E.Svingor& M.Moln ar.In press.Ujabb adatok a baden-peceli kultura datalasahoz

[New dates to the chronology of Baden/Pecelculture].Archeometriai Muhely2007/1.

Kaczanowska, M. 1982/1983. Z badan nadprzemysem krzemiennym kultury ceramikipromienistej.Acta Archaeologica Carpatica22:65-96.

Kalicz, N. 1963.Die Peceler (Badener) Kultur undAnatolien.Budapest: Hungarian Academy ofSciences.

2002. Eigenartige anthropomorphe Plastik derkupferzeitlichen Badener Kultur imKarpatenbecken.Budapest R egis egei36: 11-53.

Kruk, J. & S. Milisauskas.1990. Radiocarbon datingof Neolithic assemblages from Bronocice. PrzegladArcheologiczny37: 195-228.

Maran, J.2001. Zur Westausbreitung vonBoleraz-Elementen in Mitteleuropa, in P. Roman.& S. Diamandi (ed.)Cernavoda III-Boleraz. Einvorgeschichtliches Phanomen zwischen dem Oberrheinund der unteren Donau(Symposium Magnalia/Neptun 18-24 October 1999; Studia Danubiana,series Symposia 2): 673-720. Bucharest: Vavila.

2004. Die Badener Kultur und ihre Raderfahrzeuge,in S. Burmeister & M. Fansa (ed.) Rad und Wagen.Der Ursprung einer Innovation. Wagen im vorderenOrient und Europa: 265-82. Mainz: Philipp vonZabern.

627


12/12

Martin Furholt

Matuschik, I. 2001. Boleraz und Baden aus der Sichtdes Sudbayerischen Spatneolithikums, zugleich einBeitrag zur Genese der Chamer Kultur, in P. Roman& S. Diamandi (ed.)Cernavod a III-Boler az. Einvorgeschichtliches Phanomen zwischen dem Oberrheinund der unteren Donau(SymposiumMagnalia/Neptun 18-24 October 1999; Studia

Danubiana, series Symposia 2): 673-720.Bucharest: Vavila.

Mayer, C. 1995. Klassische Badener Kultur, in E.Lenneis, E. Ruttkay & C. Neugebauer-Maresch(ed.)Jungsteinzeit im Osten Osterreichs: 161-77.St. Polten, Wien: Niederosterreichisches Pressehaus.

Medunova-Benesova, A. 1977.Jevi sovka kultura najihozapadn Morave. Praha: Academia.

1981.Jevisovice-Stary Zamek. Schicht C2, C1, C.

Katalog der Funde.Brno: Ceskoslovenske AkademieVed.

Muller, J. 2001.Soziochronologische Studien zum Jung-

und Spatneolithikum im Mittelelbe-Saale-Gebiet(4100-2700 v. Chr.).Rahden/Westfalen: MarieLeidorf.

Nemejcova-Pavukova, V. 1998. Die Badener Kultur,in J. Preu (ed.)Das Neolithikum in Mitteleuropa:383-400. Weissbach: Beier & Beran.

Nemejcova-Pavukova, V. & J. Barta.1977.Aneolithische Siedlung der Boleraz-Gruppe inRadosina.Slovenska Archeologia25: 433-48.

Neustupny, E. 1959. Zur Entstehung der Kultur mitkannelierter Keramik.Slovensk a Archeol ogia7:260-84.

1973. Die Badener Kultur, in B. Chropovsky (ed.)

Symposium uber die Entstehung und Chronologie derBadener Kultur: 317-52. Bratislava: SlovakianAcademy of Sciences.

Novotny, B. 1981. Zur Idolatrie der Badener Kulturin der Slowakei.Slovenska Archeologia29: 131-8.

Pavelcik, J. 1973. Zur Problematik der mahrischenkannelierten Keramik, in B. Chropovsky (ed.)Symposium uber die Entstehung und Chronologie derBadener Kultur: 367-92. Bratislava: SlovakianAcademy of Sciences.

1982. Drobne terrakoty z Hlinska u Lipnku (okr.Prerov).Pamatky Archeologicke73: 261-92.

1992. Nove nalezy antropomorfnch a zoomorfnchidoluna Morave.Pravek Nova Rada2: 205-14.

Pelisiak, A. 1991. Ze studiow nad wytworczosciakamieniarskaw kregu kultury badenskiej.Acta

Archaeologica Carpatica30: 17-54.

Proch azkova, P. & P.Vitula2001.Pr aslavice. Dlypod dedinou (I). Sdliste kultury n alevkovitychpoharu. Olomouc: Vlastivedne muzeum vOlomouci.

Roman, P. & S. Diamandi(ed.). 2001.CernavodaIII-Boleraz. Ein vorgeschichtliches Phanomenzwischen dem Oberrhein und der unteren Donau(Symposium Magnalia/Neptun 18-24 October1999; Studia Danubiana, series Symposia 2).Bucharest: Vavila.

Ruttkay, E. 1995. Spatneolithikum, in E. Lenneis, C.Neugebauer-Maresch & E. Ruttkay (ed.)

Jungsteinzeit im Osten Osterreichs: 108-209.St. Polten, Wien: Niederosterreichisches Pressehaus.

Sache, C. 2005. Untersuchungen zu denBestattungssitten der Badener Kultur in ihremraumlichen und zeitlichen Umfeld. Unpublisheddissertation, University of Heidelberg.

Shennan, S. 1989. Introduction: archaeologicalapproaches to cultural identity, in S. Shennan (ed.)

Archaeological approaches to cultural identity: 1-32.London: Unwin Hyman.

Sherratt, A. 1981. Plough and pastoralism: aspects of

the secondary products revolution, in I. Hodder, G.Isaac & N. Hammond (ed.)Pattern of the past.Studies in honour of David Clarke: 261-305.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

1997. Changing perspectives on European prehistory,in A. Sherratt (ed.)Economy and society in prehistoricEurope: 15-19. Princeton (NJ): PrincetonUniversity Press.

2004. Wagen, Pflug, Rind: ihre Ausbreitung undNutzung Probleme der Quelleninterpretation, inM. Fansa & S. Burmeister (ed.)Rad und Wagen.Der Ursprung einer Innovation. Wagen im vorderenOrient und Europa: 409-28. Mainz: Philipp vonZabern.

Smid, M. 1994. Ein Wall mit steinerner Stirnmauer ausderalteren Stufe der Trichterbecherkultur auf demBurgwall Rmz bei Laskov im Kataster dergemeinde Namest na Hane, Kreis Olomouc, LandMahren.Jahresschrift fur mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte76: 201-30.

2003.Mohylova pohrebiste kultury nalevkovitychpoharu na Morave.Brno: Ustav ArcheologickePamatkove Pece Brno.

Wild, E.M., P. Stadler, M. Bond ar, S. Draxler, H.Friesinger, W. Kutschera, A. Priller, W. Rom,E. Ruttkay& P. Steier2001. New chronological

frame for the young Neolithic Baden culture inCentral Europe (4th millennium BC).Radiocarbon43: 1057-64.

Wotzka, H.-P. 1993. Zum traditionellen Kulturbegriffin der prahistorischen Archaologie.Paideuma39:25-44.

Z apotocky, M. 2000.Cimburk und dieHohensiedlungen des alteren Aneolithikums inBohmen.Praha: Institute of Archaeology.

Zastawny, A. 1999. Uwagi na temat chronologiiosadnictwa kultury badenskiej w zachodniej czesciMaopolski.Sprawozdania Archeologiczne51: 9-55.

628

furholt2008antiquity libre

Documents